The PsyD: Heterogeneity in Practitioner Training.

Abstract

The paucity of research on PsyD programs has led to unsubstantiated generalizations and uniformity myths about practitioner training. The authors collected information on the admission rates, financial assistance, theoretical orientations, and selected characteristics of American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited PsyD programs in clinical psychology (89% response rate). Systematic comparisons were made between PsyD programs housed in university departments, university professional schools, and freestanding institutions to describe the differences and commonalities among the heterogeneous PsyD programs. Empirical comparisons were provided among APA-accredited PsyD, practice-oriented PhD, and research-oriented PhD programs in clinical psychology to highlight the distinctive features of PsyD programs.The first national training conference on clinical psychology, the Boulder conference (Raimy, 1950), was a milestone for several reasons. First, it established the PhD as the required degree, as in other academic research fields. Second, the conference reinforced the idea that the appropriate location for training was within university departments, not separate schools or institutes as in medicine. And third, clinical psychologists were to be trained as scientist-practitioners for simultaneous existence in two worlds: academic/scientific and clinical/professional.Dissension with the recommendations of the Boulder conference gradually culminated in the 1973 national training conference held in Vail, Colorado. The Vail conferees endorsed different principles, leading to a diversity of training programs (Korman, 1974;Peterson, 1976Peterson, , 1982. Psychological knowledge, it was argued, had matured enough to warrant creation of explicitly professional programs along the lines of professional programs in medicine, dentistry, and law. These "professional" programs were to be added to, not replace, Boulder-model programs. Further, it was proposed that different degrees should be used to designate the scientist role (PhD) from the practitioner role (PsyD). Graduates of Vail-model professional programs would be scholar/professionals: The focus would be primarily on clinical service and less on research (Stricker & Cummings, 1992).The Vail conference led to the emergence of two relatively distinct training models typically housed in different settings. Boulder-model programs are almost universally located in graduate departments of universities. However, Vail-model programs can be housed in three organizational settings: within a psychology department; within a university-affiliated psychology school; or within an independent, freestanding psychology school.Clinical psychology now has two established and complementary training models that typically, but not invariably, generate different doctoral degrees. Although Boulder-model programs still outnumber Vail-model programs, Vail-model programs enroll, as a rule, three to four times the number of incoming doctoral candidates (Mayne, Norcross, & Sayette, 1994). This creat...

What's an integrationist? A study of self‐identified integrative and (occasionally) eclectic psychologists

“…In fact, a 2004 study of APA-accredited clinical psychology programs found that the cognitivebehavioral orientation accounted for one-half of the theoretical orientations of the faculty members (33% of faculty in Psy.D. programs, 49% in practice-oriented Ph.D. programs, and 64% in research-oriented Ph.D. programs; Norcross, Castle, Sayette, & Mayne, 2004).…”

Clinical psychologists across the years: The division of clinical psychology from 1960 to 2003

“…In fact, the majority of Division 12 members are, and have been since the 1960s, practitioners. Practitioners with a Vail-model orientation are not joining (or remaining) in Division 12 in proportion to the numbers graduating from such programs-some 30-40% of all doctorates in clinical psychology (Norcross, Castle, Sayette, & Mayne, 2004). We are left wondering if Division 12 is viewed as irrelevant or inhospitable to Vail-model psychologists.…”

“…Psychotherapy experts predict that cognitive-behavioral, culture-sensitive, cognitive, and eclectic/ integrative theories will increase the most in the new millennium (Norcross, Hedges, & Prochaska, 2002). Moreover, the modal theoretical orientation of faculty in clinical psychology programs is cognitive or cognitive-behavioral: 64% of faculty in clinical PhD programs and 33% in clinical PsyD programs (Norcross, Castle, Sayette, & Mayne, 2004).…”

Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities

“…To differentiate the Vail and Boulder training models, Vail model graduates receive a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD), rather than the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) that is bestowed on graduates of traditional research-oriented programs (Peterson, 1976). Admission to PsyD programs tends to be less competitive than traditional PhD programs, with the acceptance rates of PsyD programs being almost four times as high as those of PhD programs (Mayne, Norcross, & Sayette, 1994;Norcross, Castle, Sayette, & Mayne, 2004;. The incoming class size of PsyD programs is over three times larger than the average PhD program .…”